5 ms·

> Truth is people want to live in a community of the character they choose when they moved into that community. They are not _entitled_ to forever freeze a cit

> Truth is people want to live in a community of the character they choose when they moved into that community. They are not _entitled_ to forever freeze a city just because they live there. I bet they would not like their town if it still looked the same as it was in 1890.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
They aren’t, but they’re entitled to advocate for it without derision. My point is the NIMBY crowd have their point, and it’s unreasonable and unfair to assume they’re entitled asshats that hate poor people. Solutions where they exist will lie in the middle, otherwise in a democracy we have ways of resolving these things. However it really should be a city level decision - the whole point of having lots of cities is they can vary in their character and quality. Moving these decisions to a state level doesn’t allow for the advocacy of a neighborhood to matter as much. That’s not good. The world shouldn’t revolve around some NIMBY, but a community of NIMBYs should be respected for their desires as the community. Ceding community control to the government and developers isn’t the right way to go.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  > They aren’t, but they’re entitled to advocate for it without derision. The voters of California have clearly decided that they aren't.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    Yeah and I think they’ll regret it. If you think the voters of California are good stewards you’ve not paid attention to California.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      Depends on the level of information available to voters. At the local level, decisions are usually terrible, as getting info about local elections is usually contained within patronage networks. At the state level, elections are much better, and state level elections are usually far more informed. There have been moments of pure greed by the electorate, like with Prop 13, that have severely harmed the state, but that's a common trap with all electorates. Overall I think California voters are newer on par with places like Minnesota thag have generally very good governance.
      - jjav 4y ago
        > There have been moments of pure greed by the electorate, like with Prop 13 That is a very uncharitable description. Prop13 was driven by people sick of getting thrown out of their long-time homes by huge tax increases. There is no "greed" in the desire to keep living in the home you bought.
- CydeWeys 4y ago
  > They aren’t, but they’re entitled to advocate for it without derision. I mean, no they aren't? These people are directly screwing over people like me. I'm gonna disagree with them loudly and publicly until the problem is solved. If you are being harmed, of course you have a right to speak up against the ones committing said harm!
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    Explain how this is a direct screwing over please. It seems fairly indirect. Did they enter into a contract with you for an affordable home and then broke it? Did they jack up your rent and evict you? Or did they lobby their government for a policy you don’t like and could, along with other factors, cause your rent to go up? If it’s the latter, that’s pretty indirect.
    - noslenwerdna 4y ago
      Technically you are correct about his word choice. But I think you missed the point.
      - fnordpiglet 4y ago
        I don’t think I did. There are many factors other than NIMBYs that lead to the perceived harm. It’s also unclear what the harm is - that you can’t afford something in a market economy? That you have to move? When they raze all the single family homes and replace them with Soviet style block houses and everyone can afford it, the NIMBYs will move too. Did they face harm? I think he is angry at the wrong thing. Maybe being angry that the cities are necessary to live in to get ahead? Maybe he should be hopeful that telecommuting will relieve housing pressures over time? Maybe there’s a saddle point that can be reached by not assuming the other side is malicious towards you personally?
        noslenwerdna 4y ago
        No one has complained about the prices being too high in a market economy. In fact, NIMBYs are distorting the market with inefficient regulation. The harm, of course, is that this regulation unfairly favors current home owners. The state of California has said enough is enough and has rendered the local regulation null and void. And no one has said anything about soviet style apartment buildings. That is very unlikely.
- ambrozk 4y ago
  The policy they've chosen to advocate directly harms me. Not in a, "oh, no, there's now a construction project nearby" sort of way. In a, "I literally cannot afford to live in this city anymore, so I have to leave" sort of way. I will deride the hell out of the extremely privileged status quo interests who put their precious aesthetic opinions above the basic needs of their children and grandchildren. If you loudly advocate your selfish and in doing so you hurt the hell out of large groups of people, they will dislike you for it.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    I see, the harm done is if the city won’t change to accommodate you you might have to move to another city. The harm done to the other side is they can’t stand to live in the city that changed to accommodate you so you didn’t have to leave, and they have to leave. Their advocacy for the city accommodating them is selfish, but your advocacy for the city accommodating you is egalitarian? I see a lot of people say this is direct harm. I don’t think people understand what that term means. “I’m upset by the outcome of your advocacy” doesn’t mean direct harm. Advocacy isn’t directed towards you, no one has come to you and harmed you. Direct harm would be them coming and removing you from your home and keeping you under housed directly. Their advocacy indirectly leads to higher housing prices, and even then there’s a lot of other confounding factors. “I’m really upset with the situation and those guys are advocating for a partial factor that gives rise” is about as indirect as you get.
    - EricDeb 4y ago
      Harm is done to the person owning the single family home absolutely but I would argue that is the lesser of two evils. The best way would be to give them some element of compensation, but still, if one wants a nice, lower density area they should move away from the rapidly growing city. You can't just expect to maintain that forever.
      - fnordpiglet 4y ago
        The same could be said of the person who wants a larger apartment than they could afford given the market for housing - move further away from the city. Neither extreme makes sense, we should probably recognize both camps have valid points and a middle path is likely the right one, and no one will be fully satisfied.
- thrwy_918 4y ago
  >Moving these decisions to a state level doesn’t allow for the advocacy of a neighborhood to matter as much. That’s not good. I firmly believe that it is good. Neighborhoods shouldn't have the right to work together to exclude other people from moving to that neighborhood.
floren 4y ago
> They are not _entitled_ to forever freeze a city just because they live there I agree, and I apply the same logic when somebody complains about gentrification.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

They aren’t, but they’re entitled to advocate for it without derision. My point is the NIMBY crowd have their point, and it’s unreasonable and unfair to assume they’re entitled asshats that hate poor people. Solutions where they exist will lie in the middle, otherwise in a democracy we have ways of resolving these things. However it really should be a city level decision - the whole point of having lots of cities is they can vary in their character and quality. Moving these decisions to a state level doesn’t allow for the advocacy of a neighborhood to matter as much. That’s not good. The world shouldn’t revolve around some NIMBY, but a community of NIMBYs should be respected for their desires as the community. Ceding community control to the government and developers isn’t the right way to go.

crooked-v 4y ago
> They aren’t, but they’re entitled to advocate for it without derision. The voters of California have clearly decided that they aren't.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Yeah and I think they’ll regret it. If you think the voters of California are good stewards you’ve not paid attention to California.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    Depends on the level of information available to voters. At the local level, decisions are usually terrible, as getting info about local elections is usually contained within patronage networks. At the state level, elections are much better, and state level elections are usually far more informed. There have been moments of pure greed by the electorate, like with Prop 13, that have severely harmed the state, but that's a common trap with all electorates. Overall I think California voters are newer on par with places like Minnesota thag have generally very good governance.
    - jjav 4y ago
      > There have been moments of pure greed by the electorate, like with Prop 13 That is a very uncharitable description. Prop13 was driven by people sick of getting thrown out of their long-time homes by huge tax increases. There is no "greed" in the desire to keep living in the home you bought.
CydeWeys 4y ago
> They aren’t, but they’re entitled to advocate for it without derision. I mean, no they aren't? These people are directly screwing over people like me. I'm gonna disagree with them loudly and publicly until the problem is solved. If you are being harmed, of course you have a right to speak up against the ones committing said harm!
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Explain how this is a direct screwing over please. It seems fairly indirect. Did they enter into a contract with you for an affordable home and then broke it? Did they jack up your rent and evict you? Or did they lobby their government for a policy you don’t like and could, along with other factors, cause your rent to go up? If it’s the latter, that’s pretty indirect.
  - noslenwerdna 4y ago
    Technically you are correct about his word choice. But I think you missed the point.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      I don’t think I did. There are many factors other than NIMBYs that lead to the perceived harm. It’s also unclear what the harm is - that you can’t afford something in a market economy? That you have to move? When they raze all the single family homes and replace them with Soviet style block houses and everyone can afford it, the NIMBYs will move too. Did they face harm? I think he is angry at the wrong thing. Maybe being angry that the cities are necessary to live in to get ahead? Maybe he should be hopeful that telecommuting will relieve housing pressures over time? Maybe there’s a saddle point that can be reached by not assuming the other side is malicious towards you personally?
      - noslenwerdna 4y ago
        No one has complained about the prices being too high in a market economy. In fact, NIMBYs are distorting the market with inefficient regulation. The harm, of course, is that this regulation unfairly favors current home owners. The state of California has said enough is enough and has rendered the local regulation null and void. And no one has said anything about soviet style apartment buildings. That is very unlikely.
ambrozk 4y ago
The policy they've chosen to advocate directly harms me. Not in a, "oh, no, there's now a construction project nearby" sort of way. In a, "I literally cannot afford to live in this city anymore, so I have to leave" sort of way. I will deride the hell out of the extremely privileged status quo interests who put their precious aesthetic opinions above the basic needs of their children and grandchildren. If you loudly advocate your selfish and in doing so you hurt the hell out of large groups of people, they will dislike you for it.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  I see, the harm done is if the city won’t change to accommodate you you might have to move to another city. The harm done to the other side is they can’t stand to live in the city that changed to accommodate you so you didn’t have to leave, and they have to leave. Their advocacy for the city accommodating them is selfish, but your advocacy for the city accommodating you is egalitarian? I see a lot of people say this is direct harm. I don’t think people understand what that term means. “I’m upset by the outcome of your advocacy” doesn’t mean direct harm. Advocacy isn’t directed towards you, no one has come to you and harmed you. Direct harm would be them coming and removing you from your home and keeping you under housed directly. Their advocacy indirectly leads to higher housing prices, and even then there’s a lot of other confounding factors. “I’m really upset with the situation and those guys are advocating for a partial factor that gives rise” is about as indirect as you get.
  - EricDeb 4y ago
    Harm is done to the person owning the single family home absolutely but I would argue that is the lesser of two evils. The best way would be to give them some element of compensation, but still, if one wants a nice, lower density area they should move away from the rapidly growing city. You can't just expect to maintain that forever.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      The same could be said of the person who wants a larger apartment than they could afford given the market for housing - move further away from the city. Neither extreme makes sense, we should probably recognize both camps have valid points and a middle path is likely the right one, and no one will be fully satisfied.
thrwy_918 4y ago
>Moving these decisions to a state level doesn’t allow for the advocacy of a neighborhood to matter as much. That’s not good. I firmly believe that it is good. Neighborhoods shouldn't have the right to work together to exclude other people from moving to that neighborhood.

floren 4y ago

> They are not _entitled_ to forever freeze a city just because they live there I agree, and I apply the same logic when somebody complains about gentrification.